http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/15/D8MM513O0.html

We hear plenty of trash talk from the left about our current policy toward Castro the dictator.

Now that this black-heart is apparently on his way out for good, let's hear YOUR answer, democrats. When Mr. Castro goes, what should we do?

I say either they play nice and give their citizens freedom or it's 'Bay of Pigs II.'

And this time, we get the job done.

Herb

Raul Castro is as much the leader of Cuba as Fidel has been - only Raul has been the silent partner. He's the muscle behind the scenes. Honestly, we would more legitiately need to have this conversation if Raul was near death and not Fidel.

I know you now need to look to the Democrats for a plan on Cuba, as you must realize the Bush administration has none...but how about telling us what YOU would do first, Herb?

Andrew

I say we setup diplomatic relations like we have with China and Vietnam. I say that if you want another "Bay of Pigs" invasion, you should be on the ship leading the charge.

So it's already a foregone conclusion that WE will have to do something?

What do the citizens want? Has anybody that is writing articles asked them?

There's no oil in Cuba. Pass.

I say we free 'em all.

Open the prisons.

Free Elian Gonzalez, whom Castro tore from his aunt while his mother died, trying to give the little guy a shot at freedom.

Herb

Why US though? Why can't they do it? If they want it so bad, they could do it.

Do they want it so bad? How do you know?

If our country is ever in need, like we were in the Revolutionary War...we'd want someone to help us, too.

I pray that the Cuban people still have the heart. Their Florida cousins are ready to re-take the island, from what I hear.

God bless 'em and voya con Dios.

Herb

So we do this, for Cuba, in hopes that they will, if we ever need it, come to our aid?

" Their Florida cousins are ready to re-take the island, from what I hear."?

You have to be kidding me on that one.

"If our country is ever in need, like we were in the Revolutionary War...we'd want someone to help us, too."

Sort of like how the French helped us back then against the British, hmm . . . But seeing how that troll now treats the French in this forum, who can blame foreigners for calling us Ugly Americans.

It would be nice if people would think before posting and not hang themselves with yet another contradiction.

Well past expressions aside, that statement from Herb, is absurd to me. I'm not trying to instigate a fight - but I would really like to hear how much thought went into that. I mean, I've posted stuff that I was like " Uh...I mean...That came out wrong." And if that's the case, then so be it. I can get past that in a nanosecond and let it go.

But man, to put that much resources into Cuba? Not to mention hope, dollars, will, etc...I can't even come up with a plausable scenario in which I think it would be a good idea.

You going to have sell me pretty hard on that one, Herb.

Unless I just misunderstood you. Which is ENTRIEly possible; Let the Cubans of Florida take up arms and invade Cuba?

Absolutely rediculous.

Herb just wants to move to Cuba. Castro is his hero....

http://archive.nacla.org/Summaries/V7I9P18-1.htm

Herb

That displayed a quote regarding Watergate?

Wow. Compelling argument.

For something, I'm sure.

Nixon
Castro
Herb

Close knit....

There's not going to be Bay of Pigs II, because we would destabilize our own neighborhood like we've destabilized Iraq. With the same stunning democratic results, too.

"Nixon
Castro
Herb"

Actually, Trixter...

Mr. Nixon took down Alger Hiss, a known communist.

And I'm pleased as punch to be Mr. Nixon's numero uno supporter on this board.

It only appears ignorant when you suggest that Mr. Nixon and I have been sympathetic to a black hearted communistic dictator like Castro.

Herb

Herb - you spout off about how only conservatives have "a plan" against Castro. May I remind you that a liberal from Massachusetts is the one who ordered the Bay of Pigs, and while yes, it failed, it's about the ONLY chance anyone has taken, save I am sure the CIA operatives on Castro's head.

I have yet to hear a plan from Bush, or anyone else from the Republican Party, on what to do here.

Yeah, I mean, were we supposed to have a plan at the ready for any country that has a leader die? Is executing a plan something that The United States has already announced?

Or is someone just a little too bloodthirsty?

The Bay of Pigs invasion occurred very early in the Kennedy administration, I think you'll find that its roots are actually in the Eisenhower administration.

"I have yet to hear a plan from Bush, or anyone else from the Republican Party, on what to do here."

With 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq, I would guess that Mr. Bush's plate is a bit full to take on Mr. Castro.

However, you make a good point. If I were president, I'd have an army of Cuban patriots [with plenty of special forces guys backing them up] poised to re-take the island nation given the right circumstances...

These Cuban ex-pats are loyal and will take a bullet to free their beloved country.

We should be prepared for a coup d'etat. Our CIA must have contingency plans for this and if they don't they better make some.

"Our CIA must have contingency plans for this and if they don't they better make some."

Otherwise what will happen, Herb? What will happen if we don't have a plan to invade Cuba on the heels of Castro's death?

He'll manufacture some other "pressing concern" to use as a deflectionary tactic in his neverending quest to troll the politics section of an internet messageboard devoted to Portland Radio.

It should be easy for him to fart out something equally as ridiculous as this current not-problem, he has quite the imagination:

"If I were president, I'd have an army of Cuban patriots"

Seriously, the mind that tries to feign intelligence and debate superiority while simultaneously posting a sentence THIS RIDICULOUS with a STRAIGHT FACE? Are you kidding me? It's like playing "guns" with a 6 year old, this level of "discourse."

"If I was president, I'd have laser guns strapped to people's arms."
"Oh yeah?!? Well, I'd have a dragon burn a trench around your land and you'd be an island and water dragons would live there!"
"Oh yeah, well, I'd have my wizard conjure a bunch of other wizards who are trained in special forces and dragon killing, so you just try to storm me!"
"Pkcheww!!"
"Pekaow! Pekaow!"
"I shot you!"
"No you didn't. I made the "sperangg" noise."
"I didn't hear you."
"sperrangg."
"But I shot you."
"Why do you hate america?"

I doubt we'll invade Cuba, but something could happen upon Castro's death. Depending on his brother Raul and his attitude, it could be diplomatic.

Remember, we promised the Russians we wouldn't invade Cuba if they'd get there missiles out which they did. I don't know how long those promises are supposed to be for. Surely can't hold for eternity. We could argue that promises made to Khrushchev and Castro expire upon their death. I don't think Russia cares much anymore anyhow.

The other things that we really have to be careful of are the socialist countries developing in South and Central America, mainly Chavez. Chavez would like nothing better than to take over influence in Cuba and become a major thorn in our side. He's already sucking up to the radical Muslims.

This latter thing is so serious to our future, I hope it can keep from becoming a political thing in our Congress.

Did ANYONE suspect 9/11 could happen?

That the Pentagon would be hit by a commercial airplane?

That the twin towers in NYC would be taken out...completely?

It may or may not happen, but an invasion of Cuba is FAR more likely than the multiple occurances of 9/11.

Herbert M.

"Did ANYONE suspect 9/11 could happen?"

YES. THEY DID.

You're incomprehensibly full of shit. Why?

"Did ANYONE suspect 9/11 could happen?"

YES. THEY DID.

Here's the link to a USA Today story: http://www.prisonplanet.com/98_meeting_foresaw_911_attack.htm

He's a buck-naked troll.

"Did ANYONE suspect 9/11 could happen?"

Commission warned Bush
But White House passed on recommendations by a bipartisan, Defense department-ordered commission on domestic terrorism.

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/12/bush/

New York Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik in his biography states that no one could have predicted 9/11.

He was there, the NYPD police chief and the head law enforcement officer where the twin towers went down.

You guys wanna play armchair quarterback because you have a bone to pick with Mr. Bush, go right ahead.

But if it was so predictable, why didn't Mayor Giuliani pre-empt it? Why didn't the FBI pre-empt it?

WANT TO KNOW WHY?

Because Mr. Clinton's advisor, Ms. Gorelick, wanted to maintain a separation between government entities.

That meant that the FBI, the CIA and the Police couldn't share intel.

You wanna blame Mr. Bush for everything because you hate him so much?

Go right ahead.

Trixter will be shocked that I won't even blame Mr. Clinton.

The blood of nearly 3,000 dead Americans is on Ms. Gorelick's hands in my opinion.

Herb

...but back to arming Florida residents to invade Cuba.

Yep. This whole thread is nuts!

Raul will take over, and that's that.

As for 9/11, the whole issue was hashed out long ago. It happened on the GOP watch, they had intel they could use, they reacted poorly to both it and the event itself.

Done, next.

This general behavior has been repeated in a number of situations, the most recent being Katrina. Same story. Advance intel that could have been used, poor execution, leaving lingering issues that essentially wipe a city off the map.

Incompetent, untrustworthy, and cheap ass.

Not the best government money can buy.

As for 9/11, the whole issue was hashed out long ago. It happened on the GOP watch, they had intel they could use..."

As Mrs. Clinton would say, "Not So Fast."

They DID NOT have the intel necessary and that was due to Ms. Jamie Gorelick.

Obfuscate all you want. You can't wave this one away:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040429-122228-6538r.htm

Your spin machine won't allow the truth to be hidden.

Once more.

Since it's all politics to democrats on this thread, go ahead and blame 9/11 on Mr. Bush.

But in doing so, you shift the blame from the person who is responsible for keeping our intel from being shared.

It shows how glaringly blinded by partisanship the left has become.

Truth doesn't matter. But then again, why should that be a surprise. To 'progressives,' truth doesn't even exist.

Herb

It's really simple for me.

None of the discussions here are about conservative vs other values, with the exception of legislating morality. That one does not fly no matter who tries it.

This president is the worst ever. The list of redeeming deeds of his is damn short compared to the list of not so redeeming things.

As a result of this Presidency, I am no longer a registered Republican and will never again cast a vote that strengthens the GOP.

Spin that, don't spin that, I really don't care.

The last 6 years have been complete hell and a majority of this nation knows it. You can score one from time to time, distort, distract and deceive too.

Worst President Ever Herb.

The absolute worst.

I don't have a problem if you dislike Mr. Bush. It's a free country.

But of all the things you've stated, the one issue you need to address is your taking issue with 'legislating morality.'

That's because no matter what laws are in place, they're SOMEONE'S morality.

However, if you want an amoral society, then we're looking at the very real possibility of turning America into Needle Park like Holland, or into a country like Denmark where child pornography rarely raises an eyebrow.

Hey, don't legislate morality, right?

Now I doubt you would claim that's what you want.

But it's precisely where that type of 'non-judgmental' thinking led in those countries.

No thanks.

Herb

Hey! I'm going to Denmark later this year.

Herb I suspect that if Gore had been president on 9/11 your spin would have been in full throttle. Then again I doubt we'd be in Iraq and by now Osama would have been known to be dead.

Ah speculation is a wonderful thing.

Now back to my hot coco.

I'm with kskd on this. 9/11 happened, and trying to cast blame for that is a fools errand, whether that fool be Republican or Democrat. Clinton made mistakes, Bush made mistakes, the American people make mistakes (was a terrorist attach of such magnitude on the average American's radar?).

Remember back to the first 30 days after 9/11? The outpouring of goodwill and condolences from every corner of the globe...The near evaporation of national partisianship as we all were simply Americans...the support that almost every American - despite a bitterly divisive election just ten months earlier - gave to George Bush as he stood atop the rubble of the World Trade Center and vowed that we would get the people that "knocked these buildings down".

And the almost six years since, when he pissed all that away on a vainglorious escapade into the Middle East, to get the man who tried to kill his father, and create a unitary executive in the process.

9/11...Americans mourned it, the world community empathized with it. And Bush prostituted it, turned it into his bitch, to make himself more powerful and he and his fellow pimps wealthier. And Bush will keep working her, until she loses her "sex appeal", then he'll have to find something else...perhaps 3000 in Iraq who "shall not have died in vain?"


Sorry, I'm not usually this metaphorically cranky. I'm getting really tired of Bush's BS.

"Obfuscate all you want. You can't wave this one away:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040429-122228-6538r.htm

Your spin machine won't allow the truth to be hidden."

It's BS Herb, even former Republican Senator Slade Gorton says that Jamie Gorelick had nothing to do with the "wall."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050817-101757-6420r.htm

I considered the following known truths, easily supported by the discussion on this forum:

-you have a problem differentiating truth and conviction

-you place your high authority above the law in that you consider law justifed by said authority to be valid regardless of what others and their authorities think, with said justification not being tied to any known truths

-this topic has been addressed here many times, with you failing to meet your burden in nearly every case

-legislating morality is generally accepted to be a bad practice by a majority of Americans and was not condoned to any significant degree by our founders.

There are many others, but those will suffice. Your particular value judgements, in this regard, are not in the majority where ordinary people are concerned. Said value judgements are also inconsistant and thus cannot be used as a greater proof for the proper nature of legislating morality.

In brief, our current law evolved from the need to address matters of property and harm. This basis predates most, if not all, religious material published on the matter. Law essentially is the means by which we can address disputes sans violence or undue domination.

Property is simple, either one has it or they do not. It can be broken down to various elements as necessary with all law tied back to elementary physical truths that make sense to all under the law. No brainer there.

Harm is of two kinds: physical and moral. Physical harms share, in common with property, physical realities; namely, the person is either rendered less by an act or not. All law addressing physical harm then follows back to elementary realities that can be confirmed by observation, in the same way property can be.

Our framers understood this and created a free society where law was crafted to:

-be permissive where known truths are not available

-evolve as a work of the people, with a system of checks and balances aimed at filtering arbitrary and thus unjust law, thus reinforcing the permissive nature.

A moral harm is completely arbitrary. As such, it tends to make bad law as it cannot easily be proven just. Again, our system of courts, and our legal process allows law to undergo a peer review of sorts where we can debate matters of moral harm and differentiate them from physical harm.

In this, you say all law is someones morality. I strongly disagree and offer the following to substantiate that position:

(continued)

Yes, I'm gonna write a short book here on legislating morality. Probably a waste of time, but what the heck. It's a quiet night.

Crimes are tied to known facts. Line them up and look hard. Murder, theft, assault, etc... The elements of the evidence are broken down, as are the elements of the law invoked in the trial. Said elements are presented to a jury where the truth of them is determined.

Said jury is a mix of moralities and as such acts as a filter in that all moralities must agree for a judgment to be rendered true and just.

Criminal law, in nearly all cases, comes down to facts. We don't know everything, but we attempt to know as much as is possible before rendering judgement. Put an athiest, muslim, christian, etc... in a room and have them all agree upon harm and facts and you have law that is largely free of arbitrary moral judgements.

Of course there are some moral judgements we all agree upon. In that case, great! Legislate it, but know said law may see a challenge in the future should we as a people become more enlightened. This is true of all law, save the immutable nature of our first 12 (I think) amendments.

So, we have some law that is indeed and in fact moral in nature, but it is mutually accepted to a degree where it is essentially a non-issue. There are very few things where we agree as a people where facts are absent.

An analysis of the origin, nature and purpose of law in our society today makes the case for legislating beliefs, not substantiated by physical realities, difficult if not impossible to make, particularly given our founding documents.

If any of us points to our religion, personal belief, or any other arbitrary thing as the basis for law, we do others a disservice in that we diminish the very freedom that permits us to hold said beliefs dear in the first place.

In this alone, legislating morality is easily seen to be harmful to our society as a whole, even if all I presented above is considered poor support.

Your claim of an amoral society is spin at best Herb. Really anyone that says this is not at all interested in anything other than legislating their personal beliefs and preferences for life onto others, most always without solid justification for the matter.

This is where your confusion between truth and conviction is most harmful Herb. Frankly, anyone that sees things as you do, really has no business writing law of any kind and thankfully will be discouraged from doing so as the bar remains high.

In the end, you can vote for people that will try this (and this administration has!), work hard to pack the courts with a less diverse set of ideologies to better support poorly crafted and largely false law, and advocate that others support you in these things because it's good for them, etc...

Does not matter as our founding documents, as well as the body of common law from which we derive much of our law today, easily provide for remedies should a more enlightened set of proctors occupy the courts in the future.

"Law essentially is the means by which we can address disputes sans violence or undue domination."

I forgot to add, there is a core truth about us as a race in this action that I'm not quite aware enough to fully grasp. I do know this, it speaks to the core wrongness of violence. It also speaks to our desire to reach solid justification for our actions and the desire for domination by others to be so justifed in like kind.

Our founders understood this, probably understood it far better than I do. If there is any solid justification for a permissive society, like the one we currently enjoy today, I believe it lies in this core element of our nature.

"Obfuscate all you want. You can't wave this one away:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040429-122228-6538r.htm

Your spin machine won't allow the truth to be hidden."

Herb, I teach my 10th grade students that any point they want to make needs to be supported by three sources if they want it to be considered, in your words, "spin proof." You got any others?

"Your claim of an amoral society is spin at best Herb."

Then why didn't you address the claim? You wrote a treatise that totally avoids the point. Once more:

"...the one issue you need to address is your taking issue with 'legislating morality.' That's because no matter what laws are in place, they're SOMEONE'S morality.

However, if you want an amoral society, then we're looking at the very real possibility of turning America into Needle Park like Holland, or into a country like Denmark where child pornography rarely raises an eyebrow."

So what prevents the amoral society you desire from decaying into the concrete examples laid out for you?

Since you wouldn't answer the question, I'll do it for you: Nothing prevents our society from decaying without a moral compass. And that's why you wouldn't address the question in a direct manner.

Nice finesse & spin, however.

Herb

Actually I nailed it.

Our society is not an amoral one. The moral compass you seek lies at the intersection of our respective ideologies. In this, you are free to live by a stricter standard, but have no justification nor right to expect others to make the same choices you do. This goes for all of us.

This is what a permissive society is all about.

Again, we have some moral laws, but only a few and only those that we as a people see very strong agreement on. As it stands today, those laws are not enduring in the same way our constiution is. They can and will be changed at some point when warranted.

The vast majority of our existing body of law happens to be tied to physical realities. Again, property and harm.

Your point on it being someones morality is interesting. For those laws that are essentially morally based, it's no one morality. It's shared morality.

This is an important concept in that nobody claiming any sort of moral authority is able to cite those laws and use them to justify their own position on things. (from a moral authoritarian perspective)

It all comes down to our collective judgements via our legal system of checks and balances. This is reason, courtrooms, people, ideologies and logic working together to form just and true as we can make it, law.

As for nothing preventing our society from decaying, that's complete and utter crap. We have all the moral definition we need in the bill of rights. From that, we have derived our body of law as it stands today.

That law will continue to evolve over time to better address matters of harm and property. It compels us to improve our lot in that we are all bound to it and subject to it.

This makes for a lot of watchful eyes! When I see a law that discriminates, I speak up. You might see a law that diminishes religion and you speak up. Others will speak for their purposes too.

In this speech, we find insight that better enables us to become more than we would be otherwise.

Like it or not, your definition of morality and decay for society is a limited one, as is mine and anyone elses. We are all flawed, we all suffer the temptation to feed our personal issues with the law so that we may feel better or not have to deal with things that are permissible, but perhaps uncomfortable.

Sorry, but this really is all about you legislating your particular morality. You would have laws simply because you believe we need them. The only support for this, you have ever brought to this forum, is your particular religion and that essentially boils down to "bob says God says" and that's been debunked where legislating morality is concerned for a good long time.

No need to hash it here again.

Like I said, it's a damn good thing people like you are discouraged from writing law. Remember our founders formed this nation to escape the tyrany of an absolute moral compass.

Should we go down this path, as other nations have, then a high percentage of our supposedly free citizens would then be forced to live a lie. That's not what America is about. That does not jive with the ideas of freedom, democracy and equality.

If we are equal, and under the eyes of our law, we are. Then our morality is equal. This is true for every American.

So Herb, which compass would you have all of us follow?

Oh, you need concrete examples. Ok, I went through these with you actually a number of years ago. (sigh)

Our supposedly amoral law clearly differentiates kiddie porn from other forms of porn, in that if the kiddie porn is allowed to exist in any meaningful form, then younger people will have been harmed period.

The result being we have strong laws against kiddie porn that are not gonna decay anytime soon. The physical harm is clear, it jives well with the intersection of our collective morality and that's plenty for our system to work as it all should.

Denmark is struggling with this, but it has nothing to do with validating our own system of law and how it evolves over time, now does it?

Non issue. You are just hand waving.

As for the needle park, honestly that question is still under debate. The clear moral compass that says drugs are bad is not a definitive winner. Our current approach in trying to legislate that morality has failed miserably. I can't say we have a handle on the problem at all.

Rapists get out of prison after a coupla years. Same for child molestors. Somebody gets caught with a little too much pot and they go away for a long time? Sorry, but that's just not at all consistant enough to respect. It's also clear we need more debate on the matter.

(And I smoke a little when I damn well please too. I find it completely silly that we have any law at all that regulates natural substances.)
What Holland is doing is continuing to explore the options in the hopes of finding better means and methods to address the problem. The UK has joined in with distribution to known addicts. The idea currently being they can hold a job and contribute to society without being a net drain. It's an interesting path and one that I will watch.

Their choice is no different than our choice to start this nation on a set of ideals. They are completely free to do that, as we are completely free to learn from it.

Tell you what. If drugs are bad, and that moral compass that directs you in this is so dead on, why don't we simply ban booze then? It's not even natural, thus totally in the realm of legislation the same way cocane, meth and other man made constructs are.

Sort that out and get back to me.

Herb:

I worked my way through kskd's epic novel (sorry kskd - a bit long winded there) and came away with this: Societies are made up of people with varying moralities (not 'amoral' which implies no morality). Our system of participatory democracy (and participatory justice through citizen juries) takes all those various moralities and distills them into law that reflect the average morality of the nation. For no-brainer items like murder, theft, etc. the edicts of the law are in sync with the morality of essentially every American. But this "averaging" will leave many with some specific points of their morality unaddressed by law.

It is the nature of man to see any person or group with a differing morality as having "no morality", or being amoral. Using the term "amoral society" is a form of spin that you are an expert at, Herb.

No one wants an amoral society. And everyone has a moral compass of some sort. But when an individual's moral compass is out of sync with the laws created by the society at large - laws created by the aggregate morality of all Americans - and acts on that morality, then that person is violating the social contract and must be held accountable.

Remember Paul Hill and the 1994 abortion clinic killings? Was Hill a moral individual? I would answer yes. Did he act based on his moral convictions? Clearly. Did his actions violate the law, a law based on the aggregate morality of the nation. Definitely. Did the execution of Hill for the killings he committed indicate a "decaying" of society? Hmmm....

BTW, let's agree that "legislating morality" means that the majority of Americans are being required through law to act in a way counter to their personal morality. And this is not necessarily always a bad thing. The civil rights laws of the '50s and '60s probably "legislated morality" for the majority of southerners regarding treatment of blacks.

No worries. I find these things difficult to distill down!

I've been nailed many times for too long of a post. You are not the first and will very likely not be the last.

Nice synopsis, BTW.

Your definition of "legislating morality" is a solid one that I agree with.

Your example of the civil rights movement is a great one. The idea of equality and it's implications are still working through our system. We may well find those results to be surprising and perhaps uncomfortable.

IMHO, the freedom to harbor strong moral convictions, cultivate them and advocate them is a necessary element to the proper functioning of our legal system. Without this freedom, we would stagnate and decay quickly.

This is why I have such a hard time with people wanting to codify their morality into law in the first place! It's a blatent attempt to just limit the discussion and deny society as a whole their venue to seek a greater enlightenment on things.

"IMHO, the freedom to harbor strong moral convictions, cultivate them and advocate them is a necessary element to the proper functioning of our legal system. Without this freedom, we would stagnate and decay quickly."

I notice that you do not say "exercise" or "act upon" one's moral convictions. I agree. The social contract requires submission to the will of society in exchange for the opportunity to live without chaos. That submission means being law-abiding. I agree that the "harboring, cultivating" and advocating" of moral beliefs is an essential part of keeping our society from stagnating and decaying.

I believe this is the primary reason why religious fundamentalism will always in the end fail as a basis for structuring a society. It stifles the kind of discussion, change and growth that are essential for nations and communities to endure.

Actually the Bay of Pigs was planned in the final days of the Eisenhower administration Kennedy approved the plans, but backed out, after th invasion started, ordering the US air force, which had promised cover for the initial invasion, to stand down.

"...why don't we simply ban booze then.."

I enjoy a beer now and then, yet actually think that prohibition would indeed be more consistent with the official government line about drug laws and send less of a mixed signal. However, prohibition didn't work then and it wouldn't likely work now, either.

Rather than add pages to a lengthy give-and-take, it all comes down to 'where does our sense of right and wrong come from?'

The founders of our nation used the Bible, including the Ten Commandments, to formulate our nation's founding and guiding documents.

One can attempt to distance themselves from those facts, but that doesn't make them go away.

You seem to think that 'fundamentalists' want to take your fun away. Au contraire.

Many simply think that certain behaviours damaging to society should be discouraged and even made illegal. If that makes me a bad guy in your eyes, tell it to the kid who's dad or mom is a meth addict, prostitute or worse.

By turning a blind eye to this kind of stuff, we indeed send a mixed signal to youth and those not of strong mind.

Libertarian ideals sound good...but illicit behaviours have a nasty way of splashing onto unintended others in our society.

Herb

"Many simply think that certain behaviours damaging to society should be discouraged and even made illegal."

Known to damage, or have a strong potential for damage? Damage defined how?

Let's think through one example huh? Pick one and show me where the harm is and support the idea that it's a known harm. Put one illicit behavior on the table and let's talk about some potential law and harm. I'm curious to see where this leads.

Edselehr, yep I left exercize and act upon out of the picture.

Acting on one's moral convictions all comes down to one's actions being defensible. Our jury system makes the absolute nature of the law somewhat blurry in this regard. It's beautiful in both it's simplicity and effective in rendering tough judgements in a just way. It's also necessary in my view.

Our law may well deny one the right to act, but our interpetation of the law may well permit said action regardless.

The guy killing abortion doctors isn't gonna pass the test of defensibility period. On the other hand, the guy killing in rage over the brutal rape and assult of his wife and daughter may well pass nicely, seeing a sympthetic judgement from his peers unable to deny they might do the same thing given they were in his shoes.

The dilemma is that we cannot easily justify writing laws that permit harm. Puts the whole system at risk because it's inconsistant at a minimum. We also cannot simply fail to regulate this or there is no bar to prevent abuse.

All of that serves as a nice healthy reminder that no law is absolute, as it must also be defensible or risk the support necessary for those who live under it to consider it authoritative.

Where regulating actions and morality is concerned, the law is only one of four means by which behavior can be affected. They are: the law, physical realities, money, and social norms.

The last is important because it opens the door for advocacy to have powerful effects on regulating behavior. Focus too much on one of these elements and the resulting regulation may well be ineffective as it is unbalanced.

Legislating morality is an unbalanced approach, given the other three avenues avaliable. Also, putting those other avenues to work, sets the stage for discourse that may well lead to solid and just law as well.

"Pick one and show me where the harm is and support the idea that it's a known harm. Put one illicit behavior on the table and let's talk about some potential law and harm. I'm curious to see where this leads."

Smoking crack and using meth.

Both are highly addictive drugs that destroy mind and body. Users typically steal to support their habit. Parents who use these drugs neglect their kids in many ways.

Herb

I was hoping for a better one... But this works!

Well, I don't disagree with these two. They are man made, and don't need to be made at all. The law currently is clear on these two and we've a lot of people in the lockup over these substances.

IMHO, we agree.

Lots of people agree, but we still have these substances running wild in our population.

We've been at this long enough to know that just raising the bar on criminal penalties is not curbing the problem enough to really matter. The ideas being tried in Holland and the UK are interesting in that they reduce the cost to society and may well improve families.

Don't get me wrong, I think doing these drugs is stupid and harmful. However, for those currently in the cycle, what is the lesser harm?

If one could get their fix, and work to improve, hold a job and care for a family, is that better or worse than being in the jail?

You gotta admit it's a valid question worth some exploration, particularly if said efforts are tied to some solid rehab programs.

Did you know some countries have a death penalty for some substances, yet their population still partakes in significant numbers? The grip these substances have on people is strong --strong enough to make them reconsider how life is worth living without them. In that scenario, their value judgements may be impared enough to cause the typical approaches to regulation to fall short of the mark.

So, how immoral is it to explore other options really?

"So, how immoral is it to explore other options really?"

A very fair question. Exploring options is a good idea. My main concern is that we're fighting a self-centered culture as it is with music, videos, film and peer pressure. Then we wonder why kids find drugs attractive? If we have a hands-off policy that lets kids decide for themselves, we will lose. On a lesser scale, look at teen smokers. Once hooked, it is so hard to quit.

"particularly if...efforts are tied to some solid rehab programs."

We agree. I earnestly believe, and I've said it before, that a multi-faceted approach is necessary unless someone is totally bottomed out. People have to see the harm in certain behaviours and at least be open to changing. Part of the key is physical, part is emotional & psychological and part is spritual.

"...for those currently in the cycle, what is the lesser harm?"

If those in the cycle are essentially rewarded to stay addicted, then one of the bad messages sent to non-offenders is that we'll enable your dependency...in essence becoming co-dependent with you.

"If one could get their fix, and work to improve, hold a job and care for a family, is that better or worse than being in the jail?"

Sure, that sounds reasonable...and it may be better than being in jail. But the guy in jail may get clean because he's away from the stuff. And rather than settling for half a loaf, consider the benefit of unshackling someone from their otherwise premature sickness and death, freeing them from a life of humiliation at the mercy of their addiction.

Narcotics Anonymous and groups like UGM and the Salvation Army deal with those in the grip of these horrific circumstances and their life stories are very inspiring.

Anyone dealing with addiction NEEDS compassion and government help could be a part of their route to recovery. I simply think the best route is to work in overcoming it, not surrendering or settling for less.

Herb

"My main concern is that we're fighting a self-centered culture as it is with music, videos, film and peer pressure."

No disagreement there. My personal approach has been more aggressive parenting and involvement. It's damn tough to compete though.

Hey Herb and Doug good stuff. Let's tackle another problem. Domestic violence.

My neighbor, a former Presbyterian Pastor, now works for JDH. He specializes in working with teens who have sexually abused some family member, typically a young girl. Very few success stories here.

My sister on the other hand works with kids who have been sexually and physically abused and the success rate is better, but the wounds are deep and grief, though tempered, is always there.

Also, and I have brought up this stat before, over 4000 women will die this year in the US at the hands of their husbands.

Currently the US has more people in jail per capita than any nation on earth. We are a violent society and kids grow up with violence all around them if not in their homes or neighborhoods, in the media.

I agree Doug that being a proactive parent is very important. My brother is a school teacher and he knows when a kid comes from a loving home or otherwise.

Okay so it was more than one behavior but at least we can address them individually.

Chris,

Domestic Violence is a huge problem.

My wife works for the Clark County Sherriff’s Office and while she can't and doesn't tell me all the details what she does tell me is astounding.

While most of the issues are men abusing women, whether husband, boyfriend, etc there are many women abusing men too.

One of the things that I find amazing is the number of women who will get restraining orders against their husbands or boyfriends then be out driving around with them in the cars. The officers stop people doing that all the time.

I'd like to know some of the details, for my own edification, (do I get an extra point for being the first person to use that word?!) but she can't tell me any of that type of information. It just baffles the mind.

I would suspect that in a majority of those instances that drugs and/or alcohol play a major part.

I agree with the post above that talked about the rapist/molester getting out of jail in a couple of years and someone with a few ounces of pot gets a longer sentence.

I wouldn't make a good judge (at least the criminals and ACLU wouldn't like me). I say if a man is convicted of rape, he gets one appeal. If he loses that they take him right from the court room to the operating room and from that day forward he has to sit to pee.

Now as to the statement Missing made; We've been at this long enough to know that just raising the bar on criminal penalties is not curbing the problem enough to really matter. I would humbly disagree with that.

When I was a kid, a loooong time ago, I stole a pack of Kool-Aid from the local A&P store and got caught. I received a "good" spanking for it. Not a beating, but a well orchestrated spanking. It convinced me not to do it again.

Now, I realize that is a very simplified scenario, but how about what I wrote above regarding the rapist? Make it very public, not the surgery, just the results, that that is what will happen. Or have executions of murderers in public and put it on prime time TV. Get caught selling drugs to kids; make it either a capital crime or life in prison with no parole.

I know these are radical ideas and maybe even a little crazy, but I sincerely believe that if the punishment is sever enough and it is made know that's what will happen, it will deter a lot of people. Not all, there are still a lot of waco's that will commit their crime no matter what.

Missing, I think your book writing is contagious!

Skybill - NOW yer talking!

I have always said that if anyone harmed my wife or kids, whether it's sexual assault or murder, I won't wait for the criminal justice system to work. I will hunt them down and do the deed myself, and to me, as irrational as it sounds, it would be worth it for me to spend the rest of my life in prison to know that the person(s) who did this to my wife and/or kids CANNOT do it to my family or anyone else again.

Now you can commence flaming away!

To be clear, that was in the context of drug abuse, not crime in general. As for the book writing, good! The deeper discussions are worth the time, IMHO. Don't know about you guys, but I learn something each time.

Brianl, we agree on that score!

Adult domestic violence is a messy problem right now. I agree with the sentiment there is a lot of it. --too much of it really. This is one area where the law can only help us so much.

The biggest root cause, I worry about, is the lack of solid social norms. For all of my blathering about fundementalism, I gotta say this now:

A more conservative approach in this area is worth some serious discussion, but it needs balance too. In my family, I've struck one I think is solid. So far, it's looking good. We shall see when the kids all go through their 20's!

Having watched other families mature, through some friendships and my kids peer group being at the house a lot, we have way too much emphasis on personal freedom and not enough on responsibility.

Some families work really hard on anto-drug, religion if that's their thing, sex, profanity, etc... ,but fail to incorporate relevance in their efforts. The result being the kids exhibit this dual life where being with their family results in more of an act that's not really honest.

This divide limits the parent in that they cannot have the kinds of discussions necessary to really form values and build solid people. The bottom line is they need to know they are still loved and accepted, even when the ugly parts show. I do this by the simple rule that things are always far easier if they come to me with it, rather than I find out or have to come to them. The family is the base. So if there is trouble, they are the first line of defense. This has resulted in some bizzare conversations where there is trouble and they ask how to approach it. So I tell them, they think on that for a while, then approach it! Kind of like being the defense attorney!

Overall, it's a balance. I'll not sweat minor transgresssions, but trade that for more honesty and the ability to really work on the biggies. They get to be who they are and we can all be honest about that. That's liberal and tolerant.

But they also need to make sure they are somebody that can actually present to the family in an acceptable way. This means some tolerance for profanity and humor, but very little for poor grades, untimely behavior, violence, sex, etc.. Overall it works, but it is quite different than my own childhood treatment. That part is fairly conservative.

Handling profanity was a struggle overall. As an adult, I really have no big problem with it, but I don't want to see it in kids much at all. It's not the expression so much as it is me wanting to make sure they have a solid command of the language and know how to use it. So I nail them hard on poor form! This forces them to consider the time and place. I've actually seen them nail their peers for poor form. The expressions on the other kids faces are priceless!

It's on TV, it's in their peer group, it's at the school, etc... I give up, just as I did as a younger person long ago. Might as well be honest and cultivate the best of what's left!

When any member of my kids peer group is in the house, they are treated as we treat each other. That means tough conversations some times, but also the ability to just show up and snag something from the fridge on the way to a practice or something, provided they say "hello" first!

(The only parents that have had problems with that are the ones with serious issues, BTW!)

Another thing I see is families all to willing to cross the line where accountability and punishment are concerned. Stupid things like being grounded for 6 months over something minor that annoys the parent more than it damages the teen person. Deep down, they know this, but have a difficult time articulating it. The result is distance between parent and child and damaged honesty in general. They will also just start working hard at avoidence rather than confront this messy imbalance. Avoid this. I found out too late with my oldest. I think it really could have mattered.

Finding other ways to hold accountability high, without damage has been interesting. Coupla things that worked well:

-inviting their peer group over for dinner and some fun, but first having a discussion about what the teen did. It's hilarious to see their peer group just hammer them over being so stupid! I hear things like, "You have cool parents and you do this?" Fantastic and just what the doctor ordered. (I've had members of their peer group talk to me as well. That was completely unexpected!)

Making dinner for the next coupla weeks. This one is troublesome in that they have to learn some stuff, plan and generally spend some of their mental energy for others. It's quite effective when that time comes around, people are wanting to eat and they are on the hook.

Not grounded, but reduced to the lowest privlige level of their siblings. They can do what they want, given the youngest and their peer group is involved. They won't admit it, but they end up having fun while putting the high-school fish bowl into perspective.

For the ones where sexual abuse issues are a factor, it takes hard work and brutal honesty. They have matured in some ways beyond their years. This takes adaptation that is not in the scope of that required for ordinary kids. This is a factor in my family, thus the balance I struck. If you as a parent are not relevant, it's a hopeless battle you will not win period.

Lots of therapy is required as well. Find good ones that will involve you where necessary and that the kids can bond with. Total must.


(Another book....)

My hope is that these tradeoffs will be enough to avoid domestic violence in their own lives as adults. And that ties this whole mess back together really. If we had more people actually thinking about social norms, relevancy and balance in their kids lives, we just might end up with a generation more accepting of each other and that possesses the tools to work issues out sans violence.

Funny thing about the law. No matter how it is written, people actually have to give a crap for it to really do any good.

Not to jinx it, but this is exactly the kind of discussion we couldn't have when what's-his-name was still here, crapping all over every thread.

So, thanks guys - and Dan - it means a lot and I thought I'd note it.

It has nearly been 2 months since my mom died. As I have reflected back over my years with her she did some wonderful parenting.

My other siblings and I never heard her raise her voice to us in anger. She was good at discipline and fair about it too. She used humor to make a point or defuse a tense teenage moment. With both my parents we were considered precious and were cherished. Love was both spoken and non-verbal.

Today, along with my wife, we spend the time to explain our decisions when it comes to discipline. When the kids were younger it was choosing of battles. But we always explained our reasoning and took time to hear out our children's reasoning. This takes time and patience but it has proven to be critical.

Doug Says: “The bottom line is they need to know they are still loved and accepted, even when the ugly parts show."

BINGO!! That is when true parenting can be at it's most affective.

Also my wife and I share stories of our lives. The good, bad, ugly, embarrassing, our mistakes. The kids eat this up because we become very real people in there eyes.

It is balance for sure. All cards out on the table and no secrets. I grew up with that and it's how my wife and I choose to parent. It's deeply rewarding.

Chicken- I agree that this has been one of the better discussions in recent weeks.

"It has nearly been 2 months since my mom died. As I have reflected back over my years with her she did some wonderful parenting."

Yeah man, it shows.